# A Pokemon Taxonomic System.



## Sesquipedalian! (May 2, 2011)

Indeed, the idea in itself is quite useless and unnecessary as our classification of Pokemon is already quite sound when referring to the game play itself, but I am quite curious as to how one may be developed efficiently.

It is indeed noted that Pokemon in themselves hold a number of distinctions that separate themselves from each other and are classified into their associate groups - Body Form, Colour, Type, Egg Group, etc.

In such a case, what would one consider the greatest method of classifying Pokemon per a taxonomic system? In the Linnaeus-based biological classification system - the system most everyone is familiar with - we hold Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species. Of course, Pokemon is by far less complex than the aforementioned, so on what grounds may we classify the species? 

For example, would it be more sound to hold Egg Groups as major sections with subdivisions associate with Pokemon elemental types? Of course, the factor of being double-typed and holding two egg groups is unwieldy in itself. And how may one differentiate between individual species? We already hold specific "Pokemon Species" names, however some of these are shared - for example, both Flygon and Xatu share the "Mystic Pokemon" title, and specific Pokemon in their own evolutionary lines themselves share the same species title. 

A handful of days ago, as a result of extensive boredom and tomfoolery in Pokemon White and on the internet, I created a basic method of truncating Egg Group names into pseudo-scientific linguisto-cides and horrific destructions of what were once Latin and Greek:

Monsteros (Mons-) - Monster
Amphibios (Amphi-) - Water 1
Chitinisomos (Chiti-) - Bug
Avios (Avi-) - Flying
Telluros (Telluro-) - Ground
Neireidos (Nei-) - Fairy
Xylonos (Xylo-) - Plant
Anthropos (Anthro-) - Humanshape
Anchordatos (Anchor-) - Water 3
Petros (Petro-) - Mineral
Akathoros (Akatho-) - Indeterminate
Piscos (Pisco-) - Water 2
Dittos (Ditto-) - Ditto
Drakonos (Drako-) - Dragon
Anavgos - No Egg

Note the prefixed names besides the names proper. How may this tie into the factor of two egg groups? The prefixed name of the egg group may be added as an aforementioned prefix to the second egg group. The result is a single word that describes the fact that the Pokemon may be found in both egg groups.

For example, Gyarados resides within both the Water 2 and Dragon egg groups. Thus, its Egg Group classification may be "Anchor- + Drakonos" = "Anchordrakonos".

Of course, this method is extremely unwieldy and overly complicates simple systems. It is fun, however.

In conclusion, what are the opinions of the public on a Pokemon Taxonomic System? Do you believe it is possible, or are the systems of differentiation in Pokemon too convoluted for a sound classification system? And what of the above questions?


----------



## Aletheia (May 2, 2011)

This... is amazing. I don't see much practical use for it, but impressive work anyway.

How would man-made Pokemon like porygon be categorized?


----------



## Not Meowth (May 2, 2011)

I'd think classifying Pokémon in any sort of taxonomic system would be pretty much impossible, if you look at the definition of a "species"; i.e. a group of organisms exclusively capable of reproducing amongst themselves. This would mean each egg group is a different species, and Pokémon throws dozens of clearly-separate organisms under each, and in many cases several. So strictly speaking, there are only fifteen 'species' of Pokémon. And some individuals are more than one species. 

Good luck squeezing phylums and orders and what have you into that. :p


----------



## Superbird (May 2, 2011)

What you've done is absolutely amazing. And really awesome, I must say.

However, I fail to see exactly what applications it would have on anything. ;)

But if you need classification help or something, I'll gladly sign up for that.


----------



## sv_01 (May 2, 2011)

With my basic knowledge of languages, I think that you should swap Water 2 and Water 3.


----------



## Zeph (May 2, 2011)

I did something like this about two years ago! I was young and stupid, though, so it wasn't nearly as logical or real-lifelike as this. I applaud you!


----------



## Sesquipedalian! (May 2, 2011)

SomeGuy said:


> This... is amazing. I don't see much practical use for it, but impressive work anyway.
> 
> How would man-made Pokemon like porygon be categorized?


Thank you dearly, good sir. In the context of Egg Groups, it may be noted that Porygon is (oddly) of the Mineral group, thus its classification would be that of the Petros grouping. Though it may be more appropriate to group anthropogenic Pokemon in separate categories altogether, Porygon is listed as such due to, indeed, the game itself.



Meowth said:


> I'd think classifying Pokémon in any sort of taxonomic system would be pretty much impossible, if you look at the definition of a "species"; i.e. a group of organisms exclusively capable of reproducing amongst themselves. This would mean each egg group is a different species, and Pokémon throws dozens of clearly-separate organisms under each, and in many cases several. So strictly speaking, there are only fifteen 'species' of Pokémon. And some individuals are more than one species.
> 
> Good luck squeezing phylums and orders and what have you into that. :p


Ah indeed, I was considering that myself - hence my consideration of what would be defined as a direct "species" in the Pokemon world - a definition clearly different from our conventional taxonomic classification. 

Thank you, I shall indeed see what else I may conduct.



Superbird said:


> What you've done is absolutely amazing. And really awesome, I must say.
> 
> However, I fail to see exactly what applications it would have on anything. ;)
> 
> But if you need classification help or something, I'll gladly sign up for that.


Thank you dearly. Indeed, this is all more of a novelty at heart but I have always found it interesting to apply scientific concepts to Pokemon itself (yes, that does sound quite silly). It would be quite a pleasure to see your assistance as well, thank you for the offer.



sv_01 said:


> With my basic knowledge of languages, I think that you should swap Water 2 and Water 3.


Ah, you are correct! Thank you dearly for pointing that out, I shall mend the error immediately.



Zephyrous Castform said:


> I did something like this about two years ago! I was young and stupid, though, so it wasn't nearly as logical or real-lifelike as this. I applaud you!


Thank you. It is wonderful to see even at a young age such an interest in classification, indeed.


As for the aforementioned progress, a possible task may be to further subdivide the above egg groups into elemental types and their associate combinations (complete with more fancy names and linguistic massacres, of course). I may see what I may conduct as such but my basic plan is to use a similar prefixing template for double-typed factors. And indeed, any of you good people are quite free to offer your options and suggestions as well, both in the factor of elemental typing and a classification system in general.


----------



## Nelson6721 (May 2, 2011)

Could you also add sub-levels like Body Shape? That...could be important to classification...


----------



## Zeph (May 2, 2011)

Sesquipedalian! said:


> Thank you. It is wonderful to see even at a young age such an interest in classification, indeed.


Well, I'd have been the same age as you are now at the time, my dear.


----------



## Not Meowth (May 2, 2011)

Well, obviously this wouldn't work strictly within the biological taxonomical system used to categorise actual life, so I think maybe we could get away with re-defining "species" as "individuals". Perhaps each evolutionary family could have a genus, and then each member of that family would be a specific species? That seems the best way to identify genetic similarity between individual Pokémon.

Working from the top down, we can probably do away with domains, since all Pokémon are eukaryotes. For kingdoms we could just take animalia and plantae straight from the existing system (merging fungi with plantae, because really I don't think Paras, Parasect, Shroomish, Breloom, Foongus, and Amoongus really need their own kingdom), and then add one for mineral/non-organic Pokémon. Also, maybe one for ghosts and legendaries?

Then between those and genera, we sort them by body style. Now, these change between evolutions and even formes sometimes, so I'm not sure of the fairest way to do that; maybe go by the first evolutionary stage or default forme?

...I'm getting way too into this.


----------



## I liek Squirtles (May 2, 2011)

I second that. 

Legendaries-Mythos
Ghosts-  Geisa (Old Norse for ghost. I like Wikipedia a lot. )


----------



## Sypl (May 2, 2011)

I liek Squirtles said:


> I second that.
> 
> Legendaries-Mythos
> Ghosts-  Geisa (Old Norse for ghost. I like Wikipedia a lot. )


Wikipedia is a great source of facts.
This is a great system for classifing Pokemon.


----------



## Not Meowth (May 3, 2011)

I liek Squirtles said:


> I second that.
> 
> Legendaries-Mythos
> Ghosts-  Geisa (Old Norse for ghost. I like Wikipedia a lot. )


But they need to be all Latin-sounding and end in "-ia" and "-ae" D:


----------



## opaltiger (May 3, 2011)

Meowth said:


> I'd think classifying Pokémon in any sort of taxonomic system would be pretty much impossible, if you look at the definition of a "species"; i.e. a group of organisms exclusively capable of reproducing amongst themselves. This would mean each egg group is a different species, and Pokémon throws dozens of clearly-separate organisms under each, and in many cases several. So strictly speaking, there are only fifteen 'species' of Pokémon. And some individuals are more than one species.
> 
> Good luck squeezing phylums and orders and what have you into that. :p


That's only one definition of species. There are plenty of examples in the real world that don't adhere to it (anything that doesn't reproduce sexually; ring species), and plenty of other definitions have been proposed (here's one: the set of populations inhabiting any one specific ecological niche, as distinct from all other such niches).


----------



## Sypl (May 3, 2011)

Meowth said:


> But they need to be all Latin-sounding and end in "-ia" and "-ae" D:


They don't need to sound latin.
Also I sigged the quote.


----------



## I liek Squirtles (May 3, 2011)

Meowth said:


> But they need to be all Latin-sounding and end in "-ia" and "-ae" D:


But maybe he wants Old Norse. I say for minerals Minea (unoriginal, I know).


----------



## Sesquipedalian! (May 3, 2011)

Meowth said:


> Well, obviously this wouldn't work strictly within the biological taxonomical system used to categorise actual life, so I think maybe we could get away with re-defining "species" as "individuals". Perhaps each evolutionary family could have a genus, and then each member of that family would be a specific species? That seems the best way to identify genetic similarity between individual Pokémon.
> 
> Working from the top down, we can probably do away with domains, since all Pokémon are eukaryotes. For kingdoms we could just take animalia and plantae straight from the existing system (merging fungi with plantae, because really I don't think Paras, Parasect, Shroomish, Breloom, Foongus, and Amoongus really need their own kingdom), and then add one for mineral/non-organic Pokémon. Also, maybe one for ghosts and legendaries?
> 
> ...


Indeed, a redefinition of "genus" and "species" per your aforementioned terms would be the most appropriate. I shall simply hope we may duly name them in an appropriate classification? As for the factor of body style (per the other comment), it may indeed be a possibility if classifying per the generalization of the first evolution in each line, but it may not paint as accurate a picture for possible other evolutions in the line itself. 

As for the Kingdoms idea - it is absolutely and undoubtedly quite wonderful indeed. Per your statements, we may thus classify Pokemon into six distinct "Pokemon Kingdoms", however I may, if ever so slightly, mend the suggestion of "Ghosts" into "Amorphous Shapes", if possible:

- Animals (i.e. Charmander)
- Plants (i.e. Bellsprout)
- Amorphous (i.e. Haunter)
- Minerals (i.e. Geodude)
- Artificially-inspired (i.e. Voltorb)
- Legendaries (i.e. Moltres)

Of course the above names will require their own fancy shenanigans. As per the debate of whether to use Old Norse or Latin words - either is quite fine! Whatever may be the most suitable, efficient, and convenient, I may suppose.

And I must thank you all for such an interest in the idea, indeed.


----------



## Not Meowth (May 3, 2011)

"Ghost" was probably rather a clumsy name; I meant just a general "immaterial/amorphous" category for things that don't really have a physical or strictly-defined shape, which would mostly be ghosts, so. As for all the body shape shenanigans, maybe there isn't a reasonable way to assign one to an entire evolutionary family that shifts significantly in shape as it evolves, unless we just mash them together where more than one is suitable,like in the original idea with multiple egg groups. But then when there are up to three getting involved that would just be long and unweildy.

Maybe using egg groups wouldn't be such a bad idea after all; at least they remain generally consistent throughout evolutionary families. But then the mineral, plant and amorphous kingdoms already cover almost exclusively one egg group. Hrm.


----------



## sv_01 (May 3, 2011)

Meowth said:


> For kingdoms we could just take animalia and plantae straight from the existing system (merging fungi with plantae, because really I don't think Paras, Parasect, Shroomish, Breloom, Foongus, and Amoongus really need their own kingdom), and then add one for mineral/non-organic Pokémon.


I agree about the Pokémon that are solely based on mushrooms, but Paras and Parasect are actually bugs with parasitic mushrooms on them, so you can classify them as bugs.
The greatest problem about the Grass-type is that there are some Pokémon whose animal and plant aspect are much harder to separate. You can put Leafeon together with other Eeveons and Wormadam together with Mothim and Burmy, but which kingdom would the Grass starters belong into?
(Lileep and Cradily are obvious animals, so there is no problem with them)


----------



## Not Meowth (May 3, 2011)

Any Grass-type with more animal qualities than plant ones would go under animals. 
Anyway, because I evidently have far too much time, I've compiled a rough list of what should go into what kingdom (I put Lileep and Cradily in plants because I always thought they were fossilised plants :V):

ANIMALS
Bulbasaur - Golbat, Paras - Bellsprout, Tentacool, Tentacruel, Ponyta, Rapidash, Slowpoke, Slowbro, Farfetch'd, Doduo, Dodrio, Seel, Dewgong, Shellder, Cloyster, Drowzee, Hypno, Krabby, Kingler, Cubone, Marowak, Hitmonchan, Hitmonlee, Lickitung, Rhyhorn, Rhydon, Chansey, Kangaskhan, Horsea, Seadra, Goldeen, Seaking, Mr Mime, Scyther, Jynx, Electabuzz, Magmar, Pinsir, Tauros, Magikarp, Gyarados, Lapras, Eevee, Vaporeon, Jolteon, Flareon, Omanyte, Omastar, Kabuto, Kabutops, Aerodactyl, Snorlax, Dratini, Dragonair, Dragonite, Chikorita - Bellossom, Marill, Azumarill, Politoed, Aipom, Yanma, Wooper, Quagsire, Espeon, Umbreon, Murkrow, Slowking, Wobbuffet, Girafarig, Pineco, Forretress, Dunsparce, Gligar, Snubbull, Granbull, Qwilfish, Scizor, Shuckle, Heracross, Sneasel, Teddiursa, Ursaring, Swinub, Piloswine, Remoraid, Octillery, Delibird, Mantine, Skarmory, Houndour, Houndoom, Kingdra, Phanpy, Donphan, Stantler, Smeragle, Tyrogue, Hitmontop, Smoochum, Elekid, Magby, Miltank, Blissey, Larvitar, Pupitar, Tyranitar, Treecko - Ludicolo, Taillow, Swellow, Wingull, Pelipper, Ralts, Kirlia, Gardevoir, Surskit, Masquerain, Slakoth - Azurill, Skitty, Delcatty, Meditite, Medicham, Electrike, Manectric, Plusle, Minun, Volbeat, Illumise, Carvanha - Flygon, Swablu, Altaria, Zangoose, Seviper, Barboach, Whiscash, Corphish, Crawdaunt, Anorith, Armaldo, Feebas, Milotic, Kecleon, Tropius, Absol, Wynaut, Spheal, Sealeo, Walrein, Clamperl, Huntail, Gorebyss, Relicanth, Luvdisc, Bagon, Shelgon, Salamence, Turtwig - Luxray, Cranidos - Floatzel, Shellos, Gastrodon, Ambipom, Buneary, Lopunny, Honchkrow, Glameow, Purugly, Stunky, Skuntank, Mime Jr, Happiny, Chatot, Gible, Gabite, Garchomp, Munchlax, Riolu, Lucario, Hippopotas, Hippowdon, Skorupi, Drapion, Croagunk, Toxicroak, Finneon, Lumineon, Mantyke, Weavile, Lickilicky, Rhyperior, Electivire - Mamoswine, Gallade, Snivy - Zebstrika, Woobat - Scolipede, Basculin, Sandile, Krokorok, Krookodile, Darumaka, Darmanitan, Dwebble, Crustle, Scraggy, Scrafty, Tirtouga, Carracosta, Archen, Archeops, Zorua, Zoroark, Minccino, Cinccino, Gothita, Gothorita, Gothitelle, Ducklett, Swanna, Deerling, Sawsbuck, Emolga, Karrablast, Escavalier, Alomomola, Joltik, Galvantula, Tynamo, Eelektrik, Eelektross, Axew, Fraxure, Haxorus, Cubchoo, Beartic, Shelmet, Accelgor, Stunfisk, Mienfoo, Mienshao, Druddigon, Bouffalant - Volcarona

PLANTS
Oddish, Gloom, Vileplume, Bellsprout, Weepinbell, Victreebel, Exeggcute, Exeggutor, Tangela, Bellossom, Hoppip, Skiploom, Jumpluff, Sunkern, Sunflora, Seedot, Nuzleaf, Shiftry, Shroomish, Breloom, Cacnea, Cacturne, Lileep, Cradily, Budew, Roserade, Cherubi, Cherrim, Carnivine, Snover, Abomasnow, Tangrowth, Cottonee, Whimsicott, Petilil, Lilligant, Maractus, Foongus, Amoonguss, Ferroseed, Ferrothorn

AMORPHOUS
Grimer, Muk, Gastly, Haunter, Gengar, Koffing, Weezing, Ditto, Misdreavus, Slugma, Magcargo, Gulpin, Swalot, Castform, Shuppet, Banette, Duskull, Dusclops, Drifloon, Drifblim, Mismagius, Spiritomb, Dusknoir, Rotom, Solosis, Duosion, Reuniclus, vanillite, Vanillish, Vanilluxe, Frillish, Jellicent, Cryogonal

MINERAL
Geodude, Graveler, Golem, Onix, Sudowoodo, Steelix, Corsola, Mawile, Aron, Lairon, Aggron, Solrock, Lunatone, Bonsly, Roggenrola, Boldore, Gigalith

NON-ORGANIC
Magnemite, Magneton, Voltorb, Electrode, Porygon, Unown, Porygon2, Nosepass, Baltoy, Claydol, Beldum, Metang, Metagross, Bronzor, Bronzong, Magnezone, PorygonZ, probopass, Sigilyph, Yamask, Cofagrigus, Trubbish, Garbodor, Klink, Klang, Klinklang, Golett, Golurk

LEGENDARY
Articuno, Zapdos, Moltres, Mewtwo, Mew, Raikou, Entei, Suicune, Lugia, Ho-oh, Celebi, Regirock, Regice, Registeel, Latias, Latios, Kyogre, Groudon, Rayquaza, Deoxys, Jirachi, Uxie - Victini, Cobalion - Genesect

UNDECIDED
- Staryu/Starmie; amorphous/non-organic/mineral
- Sableye; amorphous/mineral
- Chimecho/Chingling; non-organic?
- Snorunt/Glalie; non-organic? (need to fit in a group with Froslass)
- Elgyem/Beheeyem
- Litwick/Lampent/Chandelure; amorphous/non-organic
- Pawniard/Bisharp


----------



## sv_01 (May 3, 2011)

Staryu and Starmie might also be animals.
Snorunt and Glalie are Non-organic, and so is Cryogonal.

Also, the Gyarados example should be corrected.


----------



## Not Meowth (May 3, 2011)

But Cryogonal is a snowflake. Snowflakes aren't man-made.


----------



## opaltiger (May 3, 2011)

> I put Lileep and Cradily in plants because I always thought they were fossilised plants :V


They're crinoids. Definitely animals.


----------



## sv_01 (May 3, 2011)

Meowth said:


> But Cryogonal is a snowflake. Snowflakes aren't man-made.


But it's not amorphous. It's solid and has a definite shape. And it isn't a mineral, so it must be Inorganic.

And Corsola is an animal.


----------



## Sesquipedalian! (May 4, 2011)

Meowth said:


> <wondrous joy>
> 
> 
> UNDECIDED
> ...


Wonderful, Meowth! I must dearly commend you for conducting such an extensive list, bravo indeed. I shall support the aforementioned changes in the listings of certain Pokemon, i.e. Cradily and Lileep, as aforementioned. As for the non-organic/anthropogenic kingdom, I suppose it may be considered a mistake on my part as such due to similar reasons of narrowing "Ghost types" when "Amorphous" would be appropriate - indeed, non-organic or based upon non-organic factors in general would be more appropriate, as I suppose everyone is quite sure - in such a case, Cryogonal would indeed be classified into that class.

As for the aforementioned "mystery Pokemon", so to speak, I shall attempt to classify them per the Kingdoms and reasons as such:

- Staryu/Starmie; Animal, due to inspiration from echinoderms in general
- Sableye; This is indeed a rather challenging one - it may indeed Amorphous due to the factor of being of the Ghost-type, but its aesthetic appears more definite in form. Indeed, if Bulbapedia is correct, they appear to be based on the Hopkinsville Goblin, which if is taken into account, along with their aforementioned definite shape and tangible reactions with other minerals (crushing them using their teeth), Sableye may be one of the Ghost-type exceptions classified as Animals.
- Chimecho/Chingling; Non-Organic would indeed be appropriate.
- Snorunt/Glalie; Non-Organic would again be appropriate - less so for Snorunt, perhaps.
- Elgyem/Beheeyem - This is another challenging classification. They may either be classified as Amorphous or Non-Organic beings, and I am personally leaning towards the latter simply for the aesthetic. The reason for the former may be due to their basis upon extraterrestrial beings.
- Litwick/Lampent/Chandelure; Quite certainly Non-Organic, due to their basis on light features.
- Pawniard/Bisharp - I suppose Animal would be the most fitting classification if other anthropomorphic Pokemon are considered in the Animal kingdom. 

And now it is indeed time for: The Teacod Linguistic Massacre with Sesquipedalian!

I shall utilise I liek Squirtles' lovely suggestions as they are indeed quite lovely along with more Greek and Latin silliness.

Legendaries - Mythosa
Amorphous - Geisa
Mineral - Oryktosa
Plant - Phytosa
Animal - Metazoa (Yes this is an extremely general term, this is one term I wish for alternatives the most)
Non-Organic - Abiota

Please do suggest any alterations to these above names if required and necessary, as they are not concrete.

Using the Gyarados example for the second time,
Kingdom - Metazoa
Egg Group - Piscodrakonos

Thus, Gyarados' current taxonomic listing would be under _Metazoa Piscodrakonos_, but clearly there are a number of other species as such so we may require further divisions.

As for the classifications per type, I shall simply use the factors of Water and Flying for a basis and note if any alterations may be directly made.

Let us note that:
Water - Hydros (Hydro-)
Flying - Ouranos (Ourano-)

Piscodrakonos + (Hydro- + Ouranos)

Thus, Gyarados would be _Piscodrakonos Hydroouranos_ or _Piscodrakonos Hydrouranos_ of the _Metazoa_ kingdom, however, again, there are multiple instances of these Water/Flying pokemon, thus this distinction may not be the most viable.

I must commend the immediate interest in some for this simple idea, however. <insert obligatory "MAKING THIS HAPEN" reference>


----------



## Aletheia (May 4, 2011)

See, this is the thing that bugs me most about this. What's the point of a taxonomic system if more than one species have the exact same name?

(also, how would evolutionary lines be handled? is each Pokemon an individual species?)


----------



## Not Meowth (May 4, 2011)

opaltiger said:


> They're crinoids. Definitely animals.


So they are. Oops.



sv_01 said:


> But it's not amorphous. It's solid and has a definite shape. And it isn't a mineral, so it must be Inorganic.
> 
> And Corsola is an animal.


...I keep forgetting coral is a colony of tiny organisms and not actual rock. And really I just put Cryogonal in Amorphous for lack of a decent place to put it; it should have gone on the Undecided list really. Its Pokédex entry mentions it melting into steam, so maybe it's kind of amorphous? Blah, inorganic will do.



SomeGuy said:


> See, this is the thing that bugs me most about this. What's the point of a taxonomic system if more than one species have the exact same name?
> 
> (also, how would evolutionary lines be handled? is each Pokemon an individual species?)


They won't. Each evolutionary family will have its own genus and each Pokémon in it will have an individual species name, and those are really the only two names species ever get referred to by.


re: naming things by their type combinations- they change an awful lot through evolution, so that's not going to work at all. Good luck assigning one to the Eevee line :p


----------



## Sesquipedalian! (May 4, 2011)

SomeGuy said:


> See, this is the thing that bugs me most about this. What's the point of a taxonomic system if more than one species have the exact same name?
> 
> (also, how would evolutionary lines be handled? is each Pokemon an individual species?)


Indeed, it is the major problem, and it is indeed why an alternative method may be used. The above methods were possibilities of further classifications, one would suppose, that may be further subdivided i.e. how the Linneaus-based taxonomic system holds its own levels. The most specific differences I may currently consider between species (besides aesthetic) is the Species Name of a Pokemon, but again, there are similarities. Quite hopefully, this may be worked around - either through the use of an alternative method in itself or playing around with how exactly the names are shown as to differentiate between individual Pokemon.

Per context, my consideration is that of three paths I had first considered when creating the Egg Group system - 

1. The Pokemon are indeed their own separate species, and this is displayed through different species names
2. The Pokemon are named after their normal, English names as species.
3. The Pokemon are indeed their own separate species, but this is displayed in a manner of numbering attached to the specific species name of the first Pokemon in the evolutionary line, perhaps.

Let us, in this example, use Magikarp's Japanese name, Koiking, as the basis of a species name and placeholder.

Thus, Magikarp would be:
Piscodrakonos Unokoiking

and Gyarados would be:
Piscodrakonos Doskoiking

(Of course, Spanish numbers are utilised here as placeholders for more appropriate prefixes.)

This would limit the extensive requirement of specific species names, at least relatively, whilst remaining distinct. However, the matter of naming the first Pokemon in an evolutionary line per its species is a more distinct manner entirely.

Of course, number 3 is extremely convoluted and 2 is more preferable an option.



Meowth said:


> re: naming things by their type combinations- they change an awful lot through evolution, so that's not going to work at all. Good luck assigning one to the Eevee line :p


Indeed, such typing-based classification may be considered something more appropriate for using elemental types as a distinct classification level itself, but even that is not the most reliable.


----------



## Aletheia (May 4, 2011)

It's just this seems a tad bit arbitrary. The best way would be using aspects of the Pkmn that are important to trainers/breeders/coordinators. Specifically, incorporating element type, egg group, and showing what evolutionary line the Pokemon belongs to would be most important. I like the idea of having the first Pokemon name the line 
(the koiking family :3)

Hey, what do coordinators care about in a Pokemon?

EDIT: Here's a little something I came up with:
Formula for naming Pkmn:
[elemental type(s)][general suffix referring to Pkmn] [egg group] [name of first species in line][suffix showing order in line]

And, of course, we'd need to come up with some supercool terms for all this.


----------

